A touch. A palpable touch.
I've tried playing less conventional games. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get them but I fundamentally do not like them. I have good friends who do and the play they describe seems like a string of disconnected moments with consequences keyed to maximize putative impact in ways that I personally would find the opposite of engaging in play. At the table I would find it impossible to square "I failed this cooking check" with "the bandits have appeared as a consequence." As you imply the failure there is probably entirely mine.
I don't think that it's your failure, though I do think that it was important for me was to recognize that the mechanical processes for action resolution are not the same between games. It's like how rolling dice in board games don't just represent one thing across all board games. I think that this is one thing that trips people up when going from games with skills (or a lack thereof) to games with moves, actions, etc.
What's transpiring isn't necessarily the pass/failing of a singular atomic action. It may be about when the GM gets to change the game state with new fiction or add pressure to the situation based on their understanding of the fiction. That's not necessarily tied to the roll in a conventional game: IME, it's often the GM's whim that decides that the bandits come, regardless of whether any given skill check succeeds or not. The GM simply authors the fiction with little to no restrains.
That said, I don't think that these games are for everyone so it's okay to dislike them or say that they rub you the wrong way. I say this as someone who greatly enjoys playing all sorts of TTRPGs, not just the "less conventional games." In fact, I mostly play the conventional ones. However, I would appreciate it if these "less conventional" TTRPGs were represented more fairly, respectfully, and accurately here, precisely because they don't enjoy the privilege of mainstream, mass audiences that more conventional TTRPGs do.
Problems also come along when people take "This is why I don't like it" as an attack.
There are many reasons other why problems come along. Going through that list of reasons probably would likely come across as pointing fingers.
So it is not that people shouldn't like it. But when some people try to explain why they might have an issue with the approach, the response is usually dogmatic denial of the validity of the criticism.
Like I have said, in game design you need to make trade offs, and it is subjective whether the trade-offs are worth it. It just gets weird when people deny that such trade-offs are happening at all.
Trade-offs exist. The problem is when those trade-offs are framed in terms of being "illogical" or even viewing the game as inherently "dysfunctional." This sort of negatively-charged language tends to shift the issue from what trade-offs may exist in a given game system to defending the internal logic and functionality of the game.
.
